Dean B. Deppe, «Markan Christology and the Omission of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1», Vol. 21 (2008) 45-64
In the last years a new consensus has arisen in textual critical circles that favors the omission of 'Son of God' from the prologue of Mark’s gospel.
The new angle by which I want to approach this problem is to investigate its significance for Markan Christology. I will argue that the shorter Markan prologue, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ' does not sufficiently capture Mark’s theology of the person of Jesus. The paper includes two sections, the first discussing Markan Christology and the second evaluating the textual evidence. In the Christological section I first challenge the assertion that Peter’s confession of Jesus’ Messiahship (8:27-30) is the turning point of the Gospel of Mark. Then I demonstrate that an additional title like suffering Son of Man or Son of God is necessary to adequately capture Mark’s Christology. Finally, I argue that Matthew and John have similarly positioned crucial Christological titles in the prologues of their gospels. In the textual critical section I provide evidence for the inclusion of 'Son of God' at Mk. 1:1 and argue that the omission of this title in a few manuscripts must have occurred through periblepsis occasioned by homoioteleuton.
46 Dean B. Deppe
a) Greek manuscripts: )* θ 28c 255 (=1555)2.
b) Versions: Syrpal3 Geo4 Arm9mss5 sams6.
c) Church fathers7: Irenaeus (202)8, Origen (254)9, Victorinus of Pettau
(304)10, Serapion of Thmuis (362)11, Cyril of Jerusalem (386)12, Basil
of Cappadocia (379)13, Jerome (420)14, Severian (408)15.
In recent years commentators and interpreters have increasingly ac-
cepted this reading as original so that in textual circles it has become
almost axiomatic16. Now for the first time an important English trans-
Klaus Witte, Text und Textwort der Griechischen Handscriften des Neuen Testaments.
2
IV,1,2 (Berlin: DeGruyer 1998) 2 claims that 12 Greek manuscripts omit υἱοῦ θεοῦ: 01*
038 28 (XI) 530 (XI) 582* (1334) 820* (1292) 1021 (XIII) 1436 (XIII) 1555* (XIII) 1692
(XII) 2430 (XII) 2533 (1271) with the dates in parenthesis. All the miniscules after 28 are
assigned to the Byzantine text type except 1555 (Vol. IV,1, pp. 42-43).
Codex Climaci rescriptus. See Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux, An
3
Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Cambridge: University Press 1991) 35
for a description.
The Adysh manuscript of the Old Georgian omits Son of God but the Opiza (A) and
4
the Tbet’ (B) manuscripts of the Old Georgian include the title.
For a description of these manuscripts see Adela Collins, “Establishing the Text: Mark
5
1:1. “Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays
in honor of Lars Hartman. Ed. Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm (Oslo: Scandinavian
University Press 1995). 112, n. 6.
For information about this manuscript see Collins, “Establishing the Textâ€, 112, n. 7.
6
Epiphanius, Panarion 51,6,4 (GCS 31, p. 255) is sometimes added to this list, but he
7
omits the entire reference “Jesus Christ, Son of Godâ€.
The Greek in Against Heresies 3,11, 8 reads only “Jesus Christ,†while the Latin skips
8
the entire title and H.E. 3,10,5 and 3,16,3 have “Jesus Christ, Son of God†in the Latin.
For references see Alexander Globe, “The Caesarean Omission of the Phrase ‘son of
9
God’ in Mark 1.1â€, HTR 75 (1982): 213, notes 10-12 and E. Güting, “The Relevance of
Literary Criticism for the Text of the New Testament: A Study of Mark’s Traditions on John
the Baptistâ€, Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts. Ed. D.C Parker and D.G.K.
Taylor (Birmingham: University Press 1999) 147, n. 14.
Commentary on Apocalypse 4.4. See Globe, “Caesarean Omissionâ€, 212.
10
Against the Manichees. See Globe, “Caesarean Omission,†211, n. 6 and 213-214.
11
Cat. Lect. 3:6. See Globe, “Caesarean Omissionâ€, 211, n. 6 and Peter M. Head, “A
12
Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1 ‘The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,†NTS 37
(1991): 624.
Against Eunomius 2:15. See Globe, “Caesarean Omissionâ€, 212 and Head, “Text-
13
Critical Study of Mark 1.1â€, 625, n. 22.
Jerome includes the short reading in Comm. Malachi 3:1; Epistle to Pammachius
14
(100) 57:9) but the long reading in the Vulgate and comments on Matt. 3:3. See Globe,
“Caesarean Omissionâ€, 212 and Head, “Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1â€, 625, n. 24.
De sigillis librorum 5. See Globe, “Caesarean Omissionâ€, 214 and Head, “Text-Critical
15
Study of Mark 1.1â€, 625, n. 26.
See the list of textual critics who support an omission in Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark:
16
A Commentary. Hermeneia Series (Fortress 2007) 130. One could add Joel Marcus, Mark
1-8. The Anchor Bible (Doubleday 2000) 141 and Gordon Fee as the influence behind the
TNIV.
FOLLOW US